Explore the vast range of titles available.

To synthesize evidence on physical activity interventions that used wearables, either alone or in combination with education or rehabilitation, in adults following orthopaedic surgical procedures. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials of wearable-based interventions from each database's inception to August 2021 in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Relevant outcomes included physical activity, physical function, pain, psychological distress, or general health. PEDro scale scoring ranges from 0 to 10 and was used to appraise studies as high (≥7), moderate (5-6), or poor (<5) quality. Of 335 articles identified, 6 articles met eligibility criteria. PEDro scores ranged from 2 to 6, with 3 studies of moderate quality and 3 of poor quality. Studies included patients undergoing total knee (number; n = 4) or total knee or hip (n = 1) arthroplasty and lumbar disc herniation surgery (n = 1). In addition to wearables, intervention components included step diary (n = 2), motivational interviewing (n = 1), goal setting (n = 2), tailored exercise program (n = 2), or financial incentives (n = 1). Interventions were delivered in-person (n = 2), remotely (n = 3) or in a hybrid format (n = 1). Intervention duration ranged from 6 weeks to 6 months. Compared to controls, 3 moderate quality studies reported greater improvement in steps/day; however, 1 moderate and 2 poor quality studies showed no between-group difference in physical function, pain, or quality of life. No serious adverse events related to the use of wearable were reported. The effects of physical activity interventions using wearables, either delivered in-person or remotely, appear promising for increasing steps per day after joint arthroplasty; however, this finding should be viewed with caution since it is based on 3 moderate quality studies. Further research is needed to determine the therapeutic effects of using wearables as an intervention component in patients undergoing other orthopaedic surgical procedures. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020186103.

We investigated the proportion of orthopaedic procedures supported by evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing operative procedures to a non-operative alternative. Orthopaedic procedures conducted in 2009, 2010 and 2011 across three metropolitan teaching hospitals were identified, grouped and ranked according to frequency. Searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were performed to identify RCTs evaluating the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures. Included studies were categorised as \"supportive\" or \"not supportive\" of operative treatment. A risk of bias analysis was conducted for included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. A total of 9,392 orthopaedic procedures were performed across the index period. 94.6% (8886 procedures) of the total volume, representing the 32 most common operative procedure categories, were used for this analysis. Of the 83 included RCTs, 22.9% (19/83) were classified as supportive of operative intervention. 36.9% (3279/8886) of the total volume of procedures performed were supported by at least one RCT showing surgery to be superior to a non-operative alternative. 19.6% (1743/8886) of the total volume of procedures performed were supported by at least one low risk of bias RCT showing surgery to be superior to a non-operative alternative. The level of RCT support for common orthopaedic procedures compares unfavourably with other fields of medicine.

BackgroundThe majority of recent orthopaedics randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been non-inferiority trials with no significant clinical or statistical differences between treatment groups. The aim of this study was to evaluate randomised trials for significant findings in the orthopaedic literature based on the main elective procedures undertaken across different subspecialties.MethodsWe evaluated the following procedures: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), subacromial decompression (SAD), carpal tunnel decompression (CTD), total hip replacement (THR), anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), total knee replacement (TKR) and hallux valgus correction (HVC). Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2018, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 12 January 2018) and Embase (1980 to 12 January 2018). Trials that met our inclusion criteria were assessed using a binary outcome measure of whether they reported statistically significant findings.ResultsWe included 1078 RCTs across seven most commonly performed elective procedures. Of those, only 16% (172/1078) reported significant findings [ACDF 26/77 (33.8%); SAD 2/22 (9%); CTD 11/72 (15.3%); THR 52/281 (18.5%); ACLR 21/239 (8.8%); TKR 55/357 (15.4%); HVC 5/30 (16.7%)]. The number of RCTs per year of publication has increased dramatically particularly since early 2000s—with over 100 RCTs of those seven procedures published in 2017 alone.ConclusionsThis is the first study to undertake a comprehensive review of orthopaedic RCTs in elective practice. The number of RCTs in orthopaedic research is steadily increasing. However, only 16% of trials reports significant differences between interventions.Clinical relevanceFor trials comparing different surgical techniques, this evidence provides treating surgeons with the flexibility to utilise available resources and infrastructure to deliver patients care without compromising clinical outcomes. Further, for trials comparing different treatment modalities, this study helps to inform the shared decision-making process when counselling patients on the effectiveness of surgical interventions.

Purpose The purpose of the study was to develop a surgical classification system for primary malignant sacral tumors. Methods The sacrum is divided into three regions 1, 2 and 3 by the S1–S2 and S2–S3 junctions. En bloc resections were classified into five types: type I involves regions 1, or 1 and 2, or regions 1, 2 and 3, type II involves regions 2 and 3, and type III involves only region 3. Type IV includes sagittal hemisacrectomy and resection of a portion of the adjacent ilium. Type V includes the sacrum and the fifth lumbar vertebra. 117 patient cases (68 females and 49 males) were reviewed. Results There were two perioperative deaths. Of the 35 patients who should have undergone type I resection, local recurrence (LR) occurred in four of the 14 patients who underwent type I resection with free margins without tumor rupture. The other 21 patients underwent piecemeal resection, and LR occurred in 15 ( P  = 0.013). 35 patients underwent type II resection. Free margin without tumor rupture was accomplished in 26 and LR occurred in 6. Tumor rupture (TR) occurred in the other 9 and LR occurred in seven (Yates’ P  = 0.012). All 33 patients underwent type III resection with free margins without tumor rupture. LR occurred in five. 11 patients had type IV resection. Free margin without tumor rupture was accomplished in seven and LR occurred in three. TR occurred in the other four, and LR occurred in two (Yates’ P  = 0.689). One patient underwent type V resection with free margin without tumor rupture and LR occurred. Postoperatively, less than 1/3 needed long-term urethral catheterization. No patients received colostomy for postoperative fecal incontinence. All the patients were able to ambulate. Conclusion Our classification system and the corresponding surgical approaches are helpful in dealing with primary malignant sacral tumors. Better oncologic results could be expected if free margin without tumor rupture was accomplished.

Objective Different classification systems for surgical tumor resections in the proximal humerus and scapula have been described, but none are specific or have been recently revised. The purpose of this article is to report modified surgical techniques and a new classification system for resections in the humerus and scapula. Methods Thirty-two patients with shoulder girdle bone tumors were operated upon. Two separate new classifications were assigned to resections in the humerus (types I–IV) and scapula (types I–III). An annotation is added to signify deltoid preservation (A) or sacrifice (B). Modified surgical techniques were devised. Results For extra-articular resections of the proximal humerus, we show that sacrificing the acromion and coracoid process is not required. Preservation of these structures can improve cosmetic shoulder outcome. For tumors with no large medial component, we show that there is no need to detach the muscle attachment from the coracoid process allowing earlier elbow extension postoperatively. After a mean follow-up period of 46 months, only two patients developed local recurrence. Postoperative infection was seen in two and stem loosening in one patient. The average MSTS functional score for all patients was 83%. Conclusion Our modified surgical techniques saved structures which were unnecessarily resected with no advantage in surgical series. We reserved the integrity of more muscular tissues and attachments leading to less restriction during the rehabilitation process. This new classification system is realistic, easy to implement, and applicable to all patients.

Prevention is particularly challenging in implant-associated bone and joint infection, as it could reduce the following: (1) the risk of infection in particular patient populations; (2) the risk associated with particular surgical procedures; and/or (3) the risk of infection with particular pathogen that has the ability to produce biofilm, such as staphylococci. As a consequence, it is crucial to identify: (1) host-related risk factors that may be involved in the acquisition of infection; (2) surgical procedures particularly at risk of infection; and (3) the different ways to target the most frequent pathogens involved in implant-associated spinal infection. In this article, we reviewed the data of the literature on the infection prevention in spine surgery.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final order to reclassify pedicle screw systems, a preamendments class III device (regulated under product code NKB), into class II (special controls), renaming the device \"thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw systems\"; reclassify dynamic stabilization systems, a subtype of pedicle screw systems regulated under product code NQP when used as an adjunct to fusion, into class II (special controls), renaming this device subtype \"semi-rigid systems\"; and clarify the device identification of pedicle screw systems to more clearly delineate between rigid pedicle screw systems and semi-rigid systems. FDA is finalizing this action based on a reevaluation of information pertaining to the device type.

Background There has been great interest in performing outpatient THA and TKA. Studies have compared such procedures done as outpatients versus inpatients. However, stated “outpatient” status as defined by large national databases such as the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) may not be a consistent entity, and the actual lengths of stay of those patients categorized as outpatients in NSQIP have not been specifically ascertained and may in fact include some patients who are “observed” for one or more nights. Current regulations in the United States allow these “observed” patients to stay more than one night at the hospital under observation status despite being coded as outpatients. Determining the degree to which this is the case, and what, exactly, “outpatient” means in the NSQIP, may influence the way clinicians read studies from that source and the way hospital systems and policymakers use those data. Questions/Purposes The purposes of this study were (1) to utilize the NSQIP database to characterize the differences in definition of “inpatient” and “outpatient” (stated status versus actual length of stay [LOS], measured in days) for THA and TKA; and (2) to study the effect of defining populations using different definitions. Methods Patients who underwent THA and TKA in the 2005 to 2014 NSQIP database were identified. Outpatient procedures were defined as either hospital LOS = 0 days in NSQIP or being termed “outpatient” by the hospital. The actual hospital LOS of “outpatients” was characterized. “Outpatients” were considered to have stayed overnight if they had a LOS of 1 day or longer. The effects of the different definitions on 30-day outcomes were evaluated using multivariate analysis while controlling for potential confounding factors. Results Of 72,651 patients undergoing THA, 529 were identified as “outpatients” but only 63 of these (12%) had a LOS = 0. Of 117,454 patients undergoing TKA, 890 were identified as “outpatients” but only 95 of these (11%) had a LOS = 0. After controlling for potential confounding factors such as gender, body mass index, functional status before surgery, comorbidities, and smoking status, we found “inpatient” THA to be associated with increased risk of any adverse event (relative risk, 2.643, p = 0.002), serious adverse event (relative risk, 2.455, p = 0.011), and readmission (relative risk, 2.775, p = 0.010) compared with “outpatient” THA. However, for the same procedure and controlling for the same factors, patients who had LOS > 0 were not associated with any increased risk compared with patients who had LOS = 0. A similar trend was also found in the TKA cohort. Conclusions Future THA, TKA, or other investigations on this topic should consistently quantify the term “outpatient” because different definitions, stated status or actual LOS, may lead to different assignments of risk factors for postoperative complications. Accurate data regarding risk factors for complications after total joint arthroplasty are crucial for efforts to reduce length of hospital stay and minimize complications. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.